The end is near —

UK Supreme Court: yes, extradite Julian Assange to Sweden

But WikiLeaks founder has two weeks to make one final appeal.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange today took one crucial step closer to extradition as the UK Supreme Court ruled that Sweden's European Arrest Warrant (EAW) for his capture and return was in fact valid.

Assange has been in England since December 2010, when the Swedish arrest warrant was issued by a state prosecutor there. It came after complaints about sexual molestation and rape were lodged against Assange, who had already left the country. Assange has been under house arrest (and subject to electronic monitoring) in the UK ever since as he fought the Swedish extradition request.

His case reached the UK Supreme Court, which heard arguments that the EAW was invalid because it had not been issued by a "judicial authority," as required by the UK's 2003 Extradition Act. Assange's lawyer argued that a Swedish prosecutor was not an impartial judge, and that such warrants should be valid only when issued by a member of the judiciary. The situation was murky—an early draft of the European Union "framework decision" that formed the basis for the Extradition Act had once mentioned "prosecutors" explicitly when talking about warrants, but this was removed in the final copy. At least 11 European countries did name prosecutors as "judicial authorities" when it came time to implement the framework in national law—but the Extradition Act did not mention them.

Two Supreme Court judges, Lord Mance and Lady Hale, sided with Assange on the question of the warrant's validity. According a summary of the court's decision, Lord Mance argued that the Court was bound by what Parliament had actually written and enacted; as a guide to interpretation, he also noted that cabinet ministers' statements "showed that repeated assurances were given that an issuing judicial authority would have to be a court, judge or magistrate." Lady Hale agreed "that the Supreme Court should not construe a UK statute contrary both to its natural meaning and to the evidence of what Parliament thought it was doing at the time."

But the other five judges found the Extradition Act ambiguous and so interpreted it in a way that would not put Britain in breach of its international obligations. They ruled that Assange should in fact be sent to Sweden, but not before granted him one more chance to convince them otherwise. Assange's lawyer was given 14 days to file an appeal on grounds that the Court made its decision using legal principles that had not been argued over in the case.

Should Assange eventually be extradited, he will still face a full trial in Sweden to determine guilt or innocence; the current arrest warrant is merely a request to return him to Swedish jurisdiction for legal proceedings.

The WikiLeaks Twitter account has been writing widely about the decision this morning, and has already conjured a link between US government policy, Sweden, and the decision. "Hiliary Clinton [sic] and State Dept team arrive Stockhom [sic] June 3-4; 4 days after Assange extradition decision. Fanciful to think no discussion," WikiLeaks wrote. Assange has long claimed that the Swedish prosecution is a politically motivated tool to get him to Sweden, and from there sent on to the US. Leaked e-mails from StratFor, which was hacked by members of Anonymous, suggest that the US has laid the groundwork for a case against Assange.

Wikileaks on this has been just as bad as those they claim to expose. the EAW would still require the UK to agree to any extradition from sweeden, and given other current extraditions, the USA has no problem extraditing people from the UK on flimsy evidence.

I thought the complaints were lodged before he left Sweden but he was released without charges after questioning by police?

Correct. The women went to the police before Assange left. He was still allowed to leave, he wasn't detained at the time, but the charges remained so there is nothing weird going on about wanting him to appear for questioning in the case.

Wikileaks -- well, Assange, who is not Wikileaks -- is simply defending itself by any legal means available against a powerful entity that wants to imprison and torture its founder. That's "as bad as" torture, murder, and deceit -- the things they exposed?

Strawmen and false equivalencies like this are what let the public keep believing that Wikileaks and Assange are the true villains in this play. I don't like Assange -- he seems arrogant and sort of "icky." But that is NOT justification for what's likely to happen when he's extradited on trumped-up charges to our vassal-state (Sweden).

This case has nothing to do with rape* or sexual misconduct, just like Kim Dotcom, it's simply another sleazy step to get Assange to the lawless shithole that is the US at any cost, where he will then be absolutely crucified with brazen disregard for due process, as a warning to any other journalists who have the audacity to report what governments are actually doing.

*a rubber breaking or the woman regretting sex afterwards is "rape" under Swedish "law",one of the "victims" was seen shopping with him the next day for fucksake!

But that is NOT justification for what's likely to happen when he's extradited on trumped-up charges to our vassal-state (Sweden).

Strawmen and false equivalencies are bad, but making things up as you go is fine? How is that not a strawman, incidentally? You invented some scenario purely out of your own head and then argued against it. Frankly that's textbook.

More to the point, if whatever nightmare scenario you have concocted actually does come to pass, it will come to pass after Assange is given the full run of two to three separate legal systems (UK, Sweden and the US if he is extradited again). No legal system is infallible, but that's a pretty damn good indication that he's been given as fair a shake as possible. That you have pre-determined that you disagree with decisions that have yet to even be made is irrelevant, and your sense of indignation at it strikes me as highly ironic given the rest of your post.

The idea that Sweden permits people to retract consent for sex after the act strikes me as ridiculous, but that is the law they have chosen to enact. It is likewise very possible that Assange is, in fact, in violation of US law for his actions, even if the idea that the US can claim jurisdiction over him and his actions in other countries doesn't sit well with me. Whatever turns the case(s) take from here, he will be afforded every chance to assault the legality of whatever laws and systems charges are brought under. The fact that he has been given 18 months and counting of chances in the UK should be proof enough of that. Beyond that I will let the systems our societies have established take their course and go from there. Give it a try sometime; you might like it.

Wikileaks -- well, Assange, who is not Wikileaks -- is simply defending itself by any legal means available against a powerful entity that wants to imprison and torture its founder. That's "as bad as" torture, murder, and deceit -- the things they exposed?.

I'm just certain you have evidence that Mr. Assange will be tortured. Otherwise, claiming it would be a bit beyond the pale of rational discourse.

The night of August 14th in Stockholm Assange used his bodyweight to hold "woman A" down for the purposes of sexual activity. In a second instance he had sex with "woman A" without a condom, against her expressed wishes. A third instance is concerned with sexual molestation [translation note: "ofredande" is a fairly wide term, this could be e.g. inappropriate touching] of the same woman. In a fourth instance "woman W" claims that Assange initiated intercourse with her without a condom while she was asleep.

You can feel however you want about how serious these accusations are, but they are certainly not a question of broken condoms being considered rape in Sweden.

Lets not kid ourselves gents. If the US was willing to put Kim Dotcom through the ringer at the behest of the Mafiaa, what do you think they will be willing to do for someone who they *actually* consider a threat? This guy is personally responsible for leaking tons of classified data. You don't think they would use any means necessary to silence him? Forgive me if I sound a bit tinfoil-y, but I don't trust Uncle Sam further than I can throw him. I am also not a power lifter....

I thought the complaints were lodged before he left Sweden but he was released without charges after questioning by police?

He was. That's what reeks to me about this, the police already questioned him and basically told him "Okay, you can leave the country!"

That they are now trying to go back on that AFTER he embarrassed the United States makes me, as an American citizen, extremely suspicious of this.

Quote:

You can feel however you want about how serious these accusations are, but they are certainly not a question of broken condoms being considered rape in Sweden.

Actually, yes, it is. Two of those women have come out saying that they were pissed about something else and lied about the encounter (something that they didn't include in that blurb you mentioned). The other two said that he did something that wouldn't even be a crime anywhere else but in Sweden.

Actually, yes, it is. Two of those women have come out saying that they were pissed about something else and lied about the encounter (something that they didn't include in that blurb you mentioned). The other two said that he did something that wouldn't even be a crime anywhere else but in Sweden.

Source on this? As far as I know this is all the information that has ever been released. Also there are only two women, "woman A" and "woman W", so your statement is more than a bit confusing.

Additionally, even if something else has been stated the above is the allegations on which the legal case is built, and therefore the reason why he is being extradited. The broken condom talk is at this point a red herring that attempts to drag the Swedish legal system through the dirt for political reasons.

How many times have you seen someone slapped with the "sex crimes" brush when some intelligence agency deems that expedient? Assange's alleged crime carries next-to-no punishment, it's just not that big a deal. Sex without a condom? Is that the state's business? No, of course not.

But apparently some spook or other determined that he needed to have a patina of filth, so we have the SEX CRIMES charge. Ooh, bad, scary-bad.

Meanwhile, "Wikileaks" is nothing more or less than a CIA-scripted bag of worms used to piss off citizens in Egypt and Libya. Think they're happy now? Syria is next up on the hit list.

Two Supreme Court judges, Lord Mance and Lady Hale, sided with Assange on the question of the warrant's validity. According a summary of the court's decision, Lord Mance argued that the Court was bound by what Parliament had actually written and enacted; as a guide to interpretation, he also noted that cabinet ministers' statements "showed that repeated assurances were given that an issuing judicial authority would have to be a court, judge or magistrate." Lady Hale agreed "that the Supreme Court should not construe a UK statute contrary both to its natural meaning and to the evidence of what Parliament thought it was doing at the time."

IANAL, but am I the only one disturbed by the act of two Supremes trying to rule by anything other than the letter of the law? Maybe U.K. Supreme Court is different than the SCOTUS?

The first charge is the closest thing to rape as it alleges that "he held Ardin down with his body weight, forced her legs open, and had sex with her.", and that could almost be taken seriously if it weren't for the fact that both victims only decided it was "rape" when they each realised he fucked the other one...

Yet any trace of credibility the above charges had, dissolve entirely in light of this:

Is Assange a sleazy asshole who abused his fame to pump a couple of smitten sluts?Absolutely, but last time I checked, that wasn't a crime.

As for the US routinely "transcending" the jurisdiction of other countries, fabricating convenient mis-truths to push for extradition and even breaking it's own laws in order to make examples out of people who piss them off, that's not a conspiracy as that would imply they try to hide it, it's simply their policy... look no further than the Megaupload case, the man was assaulted, robbed and his business dissolved, long before any trial to even determine the legality of said business, are you gonna try to convince me that there is an ounce of due process to that?

You piss government off, they fuck you, simple as that, doesn't matter if you acted legally or not,you're fucked up the ass before anything ever even gets to trial, due process be damned.

Lets not kid ourselves gents. If the US was willing to put Kim Dotcom through the ringer at the behest of the Mafiaa, what do you think they will be willing to do for someone who they *actually* consider a threat? This guy is personally responsible for leaking tons of classified data. You don't think they would use any means necessary to silence him? Forgive me if I sound a bit tinfoil-y, but I don't trust Uncle Sam further than I can throw him. I am also not a power lifter....

I hate my Government and you are Right.They have Crucified Kim Dotcom and they have Crucified that 20 something year old UK Dwyer I think is his name for doing something legal in the UK.They will lock Assange up forever.I have absolutely no faith or trust for my US Government.Washington DC you are a Cancer on us all.A little more time and you will be getting a very rude awakening.You bunch of soldout corrupt Politicians are going to pay the piper for spitting on our Constitution !!!

IANAL, but am I the only one disturbed by the act of two Supremes trying to rule by anything other than the letter of the law? Maybe U.K. Supreme Court is different than the SCOTUS?

Are you honestly suggesting that the US Supreme Court operates strictly from the letter of the law?

I thought they interpreted what the law states as written -- I didn't think they went by what they believe the people who passed the law were really trying to do. I thought that's why laws need to be narrowly written, and not overly broad -- and if they are then the reps. need to go back and update those laws to be better written towards the actual intent of the law. Again, not a lawyer.

IANAL, but am I the only one disturbed by the act of two Supremes trying to rule by anything other than the letter of the law? Maybe U.K. Supreme Court is different than the SCOTUS?

Are you honestly suggesting that the US Supreme Court operates strictly from the letter of the law?

I thought they interpreted what the law states as written -- I didn't think they went by what they believe the people who passed the law were really trying to do. I thought that's why laws need to be narrowly written, and not overly broad -- and if they are then the reps. need to go back and update those laws to be better written towards the actual intent of the law. Again, not a lawyer.

Your second description is far more accurate- but there is, quite often, the idea of "framer's intent" involved in the discussion of law. But there's little doubt that in our own history, we have shaded the meaning of the laws considerably. The best example, I would say, is the Fourth Amendment, which has undergone massive changes in interpretation since it was written. This is to try to keep pace with technology, of course, but new laws written must adhere to the Constitution, and their role is to judge if a law does or does not comply.

However, what is "Constitutional" changes with the judges interpretation. At one point, interring Japanese citizens was legal (which was a travesty of a legal opinion, one of the worst I've read at ANY level, let alone a SCOTUS decision), later on, that was reversed. In many discussions, what is Constitutional is judged on a mixture of current thoughts mixed with talk of "intent".

Other times, we narrow the scope of a law, or describe it's limits, even within the narrow framework.

I'll say this: you seem to have a good grasp, but your first description was overly simplistic, and seemed to imply that America never relies upon "intent", which is wrong. As far as being "narrow" - being narrowly tailored is a part of the test for "strict scrutiny". Laws don't "have" to be narrowly tailored, unless they are undergoing strict scrutiny, which is usually the case for things like laws which treat people of a particular race differently. However, it's usually a good principle for a number of reasons.

IANAL, but am I the only one disturbed by the act of two Supremes trying to rule by anything other than the letter of the law? Maybe U.K. Supreme Court is different than the SCOTUS?

Are you honestly suggesting that the US Supreme Court operates strictly from the letter of the law?

I thought they interpreted what the law states as written -- I didn't think they went by what they believe the people who passed the law were really trying to do. I thought that's why laws need to be narrowly written, and not overly broad -- and if they are then the reps. need to go back and update those laws to be better written towards the actual intent of the law. Again, not a lawyer.

Your second description is far more accurate- but there is, quite often, the idea of "framer's intent" involved in the discussion of law. But there's little doubt that in our own history, we have shaded the meaning of the laws considerably. The best example, I would say, is the Fourth Amendment, which has undergone massive changes in interpretation since it was written. This is to try to keep pace with technology, of course, but new laws written must adhere to the Constitution, and their role is to judge if a law does or does not comply.

However, what is "Constitutional" changes with the judges interpretation. At one point, interring Japanese citizens was legal (which was a travesty of a legal opinion, one of the worst I've read at ANY level, let alone a SCOTUS decision), later on, that was reversed. In many discussions, what is Constitutional is judged on a mixture of current thoughts mixed with talk of "intent".

Other times, we narrow the scope of a law, or describe it's limits, even within the narrow framework.

I'll say this: you seem to have a good grasp, but your first description was overly simplistic, and seemed to imply that America never relies upon "intent", which is wrong. As far as being "narrow" - being narrowly tailored is a part of the test for "strict scrutiny". Laws don't "have" to be narrowly tailored, unless they are undergoing strict scrutiny, which is usually the case for things like laws which treat people of a particular race differently. However, it's usually a good principle for a number of reasons.

Thanks for the information -- helps me see how the U.S. judicial system works. I'm originally from Canada and have been living in the U.S. for about ten years now and like the U.S. system better than the Canadian system.

Wikileaks -- well, Assange, who is not Wikileaks -- is simply defending itself by any legal means available against a powerful entity that wants to imprison and torture its founder. That's "as bad as" torture, murder, and deceit -- the things they exposed?

Strawmen and false equivalencies like this are what let the public keep believing that Wikileaks and Assange are the true villains in this play. I don't like Assange -- he seems arrogant and sort of "icky." But that is NOT justification for what's likely to happen when he's extradited on trumped-up charges to our vassal-state (Sweden).

Lets not kid ourselves gents. If the US was willing to put Kim Dotcom through the ringer at the behest of the Mafiaa, what do you think they will be willing to do for someone who they *actually* consider a threat? This guy is personally responsible for leaking tons of classified data.

Correction: Assange published classified data.* He didn't leak anything. That act was allegedly carried out by Bradley Manning.

This case has nothing to do with rape* or sexual misconduct, just like Kim Dotcom, it's simply another sleazy step to get Assange to the lawless shithole that is the US at any cost, where he will then be absolutely crucified with brazen disregard for due process, as a warning to any other journalists who have the audacity to report what governments are actually doing.

You should probably demonstrate, with evidence, the US government's actual desire to extradite Assange to the United States. Why would they need to get him to Sweden first? He's been publicly restricted to the UK for the past 2 years, and the UK has a very favorable extradition treaty with the US. If it was the US' intention to grab him, why haven't they done so already?

Wikileaks -- well, Assange, who is not Wikileaks -- is simply defending itself by any legal means available against a powerful entity that wants to imprison and torture its founder. That's "as bad as" torture, murder, and deceit -- the things they exposed?

Strawmen and false equivalencies like this are what let the public keep believing that Wikileaks and Assange are the true villains in this play. I don't like Assange -- he seems arrogant and sort of "icky." But that is NOT justification for what's likely to happen when he's extradited on trumped-up charges to our vassal-state (Sweden).

Err, what?

Have you looked at how easy it is to extradite someone from the UK to the USA recently? Pentagon Hacker? The guy with the torrent site? The fact is, its not that hard at all. This actually makes it all the more harder for the US to get assange because now the USA has to deal with 2 governments, not 1. Welcome to the wonderful world of the EAW - both Sweden and the UK must agree to send him to the USA.

Plus, how is Sweden more of a US vassal than the UK? Do the words "special relationship" mean anything?

By inventing this nonsense conspiracy theory - that doesnt even pass the "makes sense" test they're just as bad as the regmes they're trying to attack; never mind the team up with <s>Putin</s> Russia Today.

Lets do a bit of occums razor here. This is about a guy, who normally I'd have a lot of admiration for, trying to escape a rape charge by trying to use his fame an notoriety to protect him - something that does him no credit.

Assange's alleged crime carries next-to-no punishment, it's just not that big a deal. Sex without a condom? Is that the state's business? No, of course not.

On one occasion, Assange allegedly had sex with a woman without a condom after she had agreed to have sex provided a condom was used. If true, that sex was not consensual. On another occasion, Assange allegedly had sex with a woman while she was asleep. If true, that sex was not consensual.

Sex without consent == rape. Rape is a very big deal. I hope you agree.

Two Supreme Court judges, Lord Mance and Lady Hale, sided with Assange on the question of the warrant's validity. According a summary of the court's decision, Lord Mance argued that the Court was bound by what Parliament had actually written and enacted; as a guide to interpretation, he also noted that cabinet ministers' statements "showed that repeated assurances were given that an issuing judicial authority would have to be a court, judge or magistrate." Lady Hale agreed "that the Supreme Court should not construe a UK statute contrary both to its natural meaning and to the evidence of what Parliament thought it was doing at the time."

IANAL, but am I the only one disturbed by the act of two Supremes trying to rule by anything other than the letter of the law? Maybe U.K. Supreme Court is different than the SCOTUS?

No court rules exclusively by the letter of the law. When it comes to the supreme court (whether in the US or the UK), its job is to interpret the meaning of the law on the basis of a range of factors, only one of which is the specific wording of the law(s) in question.* This is completely normal. Supreme courts do this by design: if a case gets through trial court and appeal court and arrives at the supreme court then pretty much by definition the problem is that the interpretation of the law(s) is unclear.

* Other factors might include the results of similar cases (i.e. legal precedent), the intent of those who wrote the law (i.e. the court looks at the legislative record from when the bill was under discussion), how that law jibes with the Constitution (if present; the UK doesn't have a formal, written constitution), the intent of the Constitution's framers, etc.

This case has nothing to do with rape* or sexual misconduct, just like Kim Dotcom, it's simply another sleazy step to get Assange to the lawless shithole that is the US at any cost, where he will then be absolutely crucified with brazen disregard for due process, as a warning to any other journalists who have the audacity to report what governments are actually doing.

*a rubber breaking or the woman regretting sex afterwards is "rape" under Swedish "law",one of the "victims" was seen shopping with him the next day for fucksake!

You do realise that if he is in Sweden, the US has slim to no chance of getting him right? It would be easier for the US to extradite him from England right now. I guess you are too busy finding reasons to make this America's fault to bother about that stuff though.

This case has nothing to do with rape* or sexual misconduct, just like Kim Dotcom, it's simply another sleazy step to get Assange to the lawless shithole that is the US at any cost, where he will then be absolutely crucified with brazen disregard for due process, as a warning to any other journalists who have the audacity to report what governments are actually doing.

You should probably demonstrate, with evidence, the US government's actual desire to extradite Assange to the United States. Why would they need to get him to Sweden first? He's been publicly restricted to the UK for the past 2 years, and the UK has a very favorable extradition treaty with the US. If it was the US' intention to grab him, why haven't they done so already?

Exactly. If the US wanted to extradite him then the UK would bend over backwards to facilitate that, provided Assange was not being charged with a capital crime. If the US govt. does have any intent to get him into the country to stand trial, I suspect it's biding its time and hoping that Sweden can convict him of something nasty and then they'll file an extradition request with Sweden. Or it might be perfectly happy to just watch him get vilified in the Swedish legal system and be done with it. After all, this process is costing Wikileaks a lot of money and the mainstream press has pretty much stopped all reporting on what that organization is doing, unless it relates to Assange and the Swedish case.

In other words, if the US govt. has any intention of throwing him to the wall, it has no particular need to do anything at this point.

Why does the media care so much about the extradition of one man for rape?

All the coverage over one criminal case seems to imply there's something more at stake, something to do with Wikileaks and the US government, but then a lot of people are saying no, it's just a criminal case. so why the farg do we care about this man's extradition? there's got to be more to this

Exactly. If the US wanted to extradite him then the UK would bend over backwards to facilitate that, provided Assange was not being charged with a capital crime. If the US govt. does have any intent to get him into the country to stand trial, I suspect it's biding its time and hoping that Sweden can convict him of something nasty and then they'll file an extradition request with Sweden. Or it might be perfectly happy to just watch him get vilified in the Swedish legal system and be done with it. After all, this process is costing Wikileaks a lot of money and the mainstream press has pretty much stopped all reporting on what that organization is doing, unless it relates to Assange and the Swedish case.

In other words, if the US govt. has any intention of throwing him to the wall, it has no particular need to do anything at this point.

If he spread classified documents, isn't that espionage, a capital crime?

If he spread classified documents, isn't that espionage, a capital crime?

Nope. He'd be liable under 18 USC § 793, which would be a maximum of 10 years in prison. However, the case New York Times v. United States has already established a greater amount of freedom of the press, and removed most of the fangs from that law, as free speech trumps prior restraint. There's clear precedence in the court that someone who publishes information, even wartime information, that they were given, can not be convicted, as their right to free speech trumps that.

Since the US is a signatory (and in fact, largely the model for) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), we have to adhere to the principle that "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers". Basically, no. Given past court history, it's unlikely he'd be convicted of anything for publishing information given to him.

Now, Bradley Manning, on the other hand, could be tried under that, could be charged with treason...and that's just in civilian court. Military members have the unique privilege of being the only citizens who can be tried for the same crime twice (as they also fall under the UCMJ- the Uniform Code of Military Justice).

Exactly. If the US wanted to extradite him then the UK would bend over backwards to facilitate that, provided Assange was not being charged with a capital crime. If the US govt. does have any intent to get him into the country to stand trial, I suspect it's biding its time and hoping that Sweden can convict him of something nasty and then they'll file an extradition request with Sweden. Or it might be perfectly happy to just watch him get vilified in the Swedish legal system and be done with it. After all, this process is costing Wikileaks a lot of money and the mainstream press has pretty much stopped all reporting on what that organization is doing, unless it relates to Assange and the Swedish case.

In other words, if the US govt. has any intention of throwing him to the wall, it has no particular need to do anything at this point.

If he spread classified documents, isn't that espionage, a capital crime?

Edit: Fix quotes

He's not a US citizen, and any "crime" he may have committed did not occur in the US.

Why does the media care so much about the extradition of one man for rape?

All the coverage over one criminal case seems to imply there's something more at stake, something to do with Wikileaks and the US government, but then a lot of people are saying no, it's just a criminal case. so why the farg do we care about this man's extradition? there's got to be more to this

Because Assange/Wikileaks are intentionally publicizing it. It's in *their* best interests to make this out to be something more than a simple sexual misconduct/assault case, because it benefits their stance as being anti-establishment.